One last thing: The previous stretto kernel I posted had the twice-as-slow lower voice in a normal fugal position: At the start of the same measure as the main subject. In this slightly altered version, it would actually enter before the other voices (or long after): 33800,32772,8,128,17440,16384,512,0,8480,8192,8192,0,264,128,256,4096 What you're hearing are the second, third and fourth notes of the main subject, which means this little cell could now be expanded into a real and technically correct neoclassical stretto (however simple the style). And by the way: The technical term for the technique being used with the lower voice is augmentation. If you want to hear three incredibly beautiful examples, listen to the fugue from Ernest Bloch's Concerto Grosso No. 1, Mozart's Adagio and Fugue for Strings and the second movement of Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. Bloch and Mozart's are perfect, but Stravinshy's is inventive and compelling.
No, it's you who kill fun by discriminating against self-expression that doesn't fit your knee-jerk middle-brow agenda. If you happen to be a rabid anti-intellectual who can't stand educational content, then it's your right to choose not to read what I have to say. But it isn't your place to try to suppress such content, whether it exists in words or musical examples. In doing so, you kill thought -- which is what leads to the fun of things like flash synthesizers and pentatonic scales in the first place. It's a story as old as the bison graffiti on the walls of caves: If you don't like the subject, then change it by creating something new yourself.
Another anti-intellectual with no desire to discuss or learn about music -- and no desire to allow others to do so -- unzips his fly and waves his stunted opinion in people's faces. Fun is about creating things and encouraging people, not tearing down people's creations and discouraging them from being themselves. If you want fun, then add something new and change the game.
woaaaah emo much? chill dude, some people like the cleverness, some people don't. If we were all clever there wouldn't be any benefit in it, would there?
It isn't about "cleverness" and my response isn't emo[tional]. I'm aware of the reaction that can result from the introduction of a serious subject and people's sense that they're not allowed to fingerpaint (which I mean in a good way) if others are being analytical. I can commiserate, to some extent, but my point is this: Bit-tech's more tolerant than that. Don't project emotional states onto people with whom you happen to disagree. Ad hominem barking doesn't prove your argument. My point is that trying to steer creative diversions away from conscious thought isn't the business of people on this board. It isn't that I take personal offense. It's that I don't support intellectual censorship. I'm perfectly content to have this thread be about writing sequences for a pentatonic flash sequencer. If someone wants it to be about telling people not to write certain kinds of sequences or to talk about music in certain ways, then it's rather ironic that they should complain about fun being killed. For some of us, studying and composing music on different levels is also fun. Now who's killing it? Write more sequences and move on.
Evidently sarcasm and humour are lost on the intellectuals. Please remember i was another to point out the pentatonic scale? and about creating something, i just did. at risk of provoking the ire of the bit tech mods may i promote my cookery thread here. seriously. miso glazed sea bass. work of art.
Evidently, generalizations are the rut of people who reject analytical thought. In my view, you weren't being coherently sarcastic whatever your intent. Here's exactly what you said: Be honest: Do you really think that putting someone in their place conveys sarcasm if what you're saying and implying constitute the same thing? In order to have been sarcastic, you'd have had to mean the opposite thing and praise me while pretending to put me in my place (or the reverse: highlight what you consider to be a gaffe or failing with faint or ridiculous praise). Colbert's made a career out of that very thing. Promote away -- your thread is about making things, which is strangely relevant here. Here's the frightening thing: I cook, too, but the mention of your thread made me think of Roland Barthes' essay on ornamental cookery. I know -- it's a hopeless case. And now it's time for sequences in honor of a young circus elephant.
Sigh. why do I bother. Moar numbers for ye all: 73858,4096,73760,8,73796,4264,73792,0,73986,4096,73808,73732,8,8208,69664,73794
Apparently because you'd rather preach about humor than exchange examples of it. Edit: Your piece is really pretty. I like what you're doing with the bass line and the little repeating pattern just above it.
You fail to factor in cultural differences in senses of humour. Your definition of sarcasm is not only unnecessarily rigid, but incorrect. The word is adopted from Greek, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. After all, you're armed with wikipedia and a thesaurus! I know there is inherent irony here but I can't abide your incessant smarminess and insistence on getting the last word. Live and let live mate, some people will never appreciate more complex things. It's neither your place to insist they change their standpoint, nor preach a higher calling. here's another fun tune: 65554,16396,33344,16768,10240,20552,41008,81920,288,192,0,67848,1540,8194,16392,4096
In order to school me on that possibility, you'd need to articulate the nature of the failure. My definition isn't rigid until you offer up the looser yet paradoxically more persnickety correct definition. Sorry, but I prefer words that weren't raised in foster homes. Yet the irony is that I've posted what I know about music and rhetoric from memory, while you're the one who linked to wikipedia -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Talk about taking the fun out! Civility, anyone? I can't abide your use of the word smarmy because it makes me picture schoolmarms with Tourette's. And I can't abide your use of capital letters, either -- what egotism! Still, your use of the comma is refreshingly understated. Ah, but the irony is that you and they are the ones who insist I change my standpoint. Perhaps your irritation is preventing you from taking that in. And here's a final irony -- if you yourself weren't intent on having the last word, then we wouldn't still be having this conversation. You'd have let the subject return to music again (along with my compliment to you). Why post argumentative responses if they only serve to bury your musical efforts? Your sequences say far more about the subtlety of your sense of humor than anything you've managed to convey to me. Whether the cause is my "failure" or your alleged "incoherence" seems irrelevant in the face of our much belabored fun.
Allow me to toss one last olive branch into your camp: To give your thought about cultural differences fair play, you might have been right in saying you were being sarcastic. If I understand you correctly, you could have been referring to this: The sarcastic bit would be an intended mocking dismissal of what you characterized as my earnest "cleverness" (not quite the right word, though -- my intent was to provide simple information that is too often treated as intimidating). Here's the thing: If pejorative sarcasm was in fact your mode, then I missed it because you seemed to imply your comments were intentionally light and good-natured. Someone (in this case, me) who can see he's being put in his place by an irritated person is not inclined to find benevolent sarcasm in the effort. What I see now, and what your later admission of anger makes logical, is that you perhaps meant I should take my lumps like a man and without complaint. And while I find that idea unpleasantly parochial, the sarcastic intent would be clear, just as the overlay of irritation could lead you to feel your peeved expectation was only reasonable. In which case, we're both right and wrong about that one point: you, for suggesting you were being friendly when, in retrospect, it's clear you were not, and me for neglecting to notice forms of sarcasm in your remarks that might have been less than friendly. Thus, the breakdown occurred at the level not of culture but intent. Understandable, that a person who is angry (by your admission, not my assumption) might wish to play down that fact in order to be civil. Forgivable, that he might mischaracterize his intention inadvertently (the side-effect of mustering self-restraint). Equally understandable, that the person he addressed might take him at his word -- particularly in a conversation on the internet, where the intricacies of tone and intention are often lost. I'm not saying that's what you did do. I'm saying that the possibility vindicates your insistence that you were being sarcastic.
Prestidigitweeze, sorry, but your posts come across as unsolicited, and conseqently inappropriate posturing. When this was pointed out (although not so directly) you accused people of anti-intellectualism (which is really just a sugar-coated euphemism for stupidity and/or ignorance). You started it, now stop it!
If you scrutinize my previous post, you'll see I only added it to concede to a poster with whom I had fought that he might have been right and I wrong. The person to whom I conceded this had previously admitted he vented anger in my direction, which suggested that my words had upset him. Since he had felt that angry toward me, I decided to try to see it from his point of view and give up a bit of rhetorical ground. (Admittedly, I said we were both at fault, which isn't conceding that much, but it's more than anyone else has conceded.) After all, many reasonable people become angry if everything they say gets refuted: they can get the sense they haven't been listened to. If I were flaming him and everyone else, as you say, then I would admit nothing and concede nothing, and make it a point only to win. Nor would I compliment his music, nor consider his feelings or those of anyone else. You've told me how you feel I "come across", as if it were universally decided simply because a consensus of respondents has emerged on this thread. You've even suggested that I use anti-intellectual as a de facto euphemism for stupid. That is not only ad hominem, it is an absolute mischaracterization, which you'd understand immediately if you knew me. If you're going to assume that much, then please take a moment to see it from my perspective: Everyone here had posted about a simple flash synth which they and I found fun. If I were the snob some have claimed, I wouldn't have thought it worth my time. This ordeal didn't start because I snobbishly put down someone else's music. It happened because a few people did that to me. Scan this entire thread and you won't find a single instance of my discouraging anyone's musical efforts. My mother was a music and English teacher in a public high school, and she taught me to consider it a cardinal sin to discourage anyone's creativity. Despite my attempted respect for others' posts, certain people went out of their way to say my initial three posts had ruined this thread. Stop and think about that: posts, which consisted of nothing but four sequences, explanations of musical techniques, and what I hoped was an easily understandable explanation of the flash synth's harmonic language (in case anyone would benefit from knowing -- even two years from now doing a search). People felt it was their right not only to insult my music and writing, but to suggest my music and writing had ruined everything. Talk about de facto insults and dismissals! If I truly played that game, I'd have responded very differently. Yes, I do think what I write has value and at should at least be respected. But I thought the same thing about others on this thread. The only thing I assumed was that I might be left alone to play as everyone else had done. My sort of play can look like work to some people, but it is still just play. And as you said, Bit-tech shouldn't deteriorate into spats and animosity. The only real argument that can be made against my initial posts is that they are conspicuous for reasons that have nothing to do with merit or the lack, snobbery, "posturing" or other unstated and unattributable motives. My posts have been longer than other people's; they were more frequent in one place; the language and ideas have been more formal. You might find all of that uninteresting or possibly self-indulgent. But you have no reason to attribute unkind sentiments and unsavory motives to a stranger based on style and wordiness. This is a public forum and posts need not be "solicited" by other members. Posters need only be polite. Every forum is full of people who blather on and on about their dog, their audio equipment or their consuming desire to become female bodybuilders. Others don't commonly reject their posts as unsolicited if the actual subject is still relevant. My problem is with intolerance, not stupidity. I expect tolerance, not special interest, attention or credentials. Tolerance, not the presumption that anyone should find me interesting. Tolerance, not the idea that someone who ignores or dislikes what I post is ignorant. We all know people who dislike us and people who accept us. To separate them into camps of intelligence is beyond snobbery. It's eugenics. You wouldn't know this, but one of the reasons I've continued to post here is because certain people have asked me to weather emotional storms and keep contributing to the forums by writing. I don't care for tension and hostility -- believe it or not, it upsets me to counter the attacks of other people. That's perhaps why my first two posts in this thread sounded a tad sharp -- because I hate doing it. I posted on this thread for two reasons: because I wanted an excuse to develop ideas, and because I try to offer any musical knowledge I can to anyone who might find it useful (music programs aren't offered in the States nearly as often as they once were and I've actually seen students -- even college students -- cry because of that). Calling my posts "smarmy," posturing, etc., is a projection of motives and attitudes which say more about the accuser than the accused. And yes, perhaps I've been too aggressive in pointing that out. Before the disruption, this thread was effectively a wall on which various musical paintings were exhibited. Exhibits often have placards explaining the work. If I had fun writing a few placards, I didn't see why anyone would mind. This is the internet, and the wall is endless. Space isn't an issue. I could be very wrong, but I'm not at all certain that everyone outside this thread will see things the way you and others have. First, I have corroboration: certain crowded sites and admins ask me to post regularly because they like what I do, which means they're not desperate for posts. If I were as awful to people as you suggest, they would try instead to drive me away. Two: without going into it, I've received honors for doing nearly exactly what I do here. It's a habit, at this point, but one that has met with acceptance or disinterest, rarely ostracism. Repetition becomes a kind of virus on threads like this. People repeat the same sentiment as if it had the weight of truth when the reason for the emphasis can be arbitrary. Two examples: one possibility out of several emphasized by an early poster, which takes up residence in the mind and offers others social permission to repeat the same idea. A verdict chosen early and wedded to our instinct toward collective agreement. I have repeated myself and others have done so, too. That is what should stop -- the subject should come to a close because people have reached an understanding about mutual boundaries. Look at my last post -- again -- and you'll see that's what I tried to do. Remember the person who posted below you saying that Bit-Tech should be friendly and accepting? You agree; so do I. That, VP, is the only reason I continued to object when people failed to afford me the same tolerance I afforded them. The method might have been too harsh, at first, but the object was for people to be able to post their thoughts and meet with indifference at the worst. I would like nothing more than for this to end and to be able to post numbers and thoughts about music on this thread like everyone else.
Yeah I'm an anti-intellectual, which you apparently can tell from my one post, thats amazing! Jesus Christ! I was simply making fun, get off your high horse plleeeeeeaaaaasseee? I could accuse you of acting all elitist! Thats how you come across, but I don't as I simply dont care. I love music and I find synthesizers and the like very amusing, but I don't care for all the science behind it, that does'nt make me an anti-intellectual, that simply just means that I don't find it interesting, although plenty of other subjects have my attention.
Not being interested in programming and music theory is fine -- that would entail ignoring side-discussions about both topics and focusing on what you do enjoy. Nothing's wrong with that. Being anti-music theory and accusing other members of ruining the neighborhood whenever they mention it is not. Threads are not like heavily plotted detective stories. You don't have to keep track of everything to get what you need out of reading.
So when I say that music theory doesn't interest me, you make me out to be anti-music theory? See the problem here?
